I wouldn't mind a buff but I can see why DICE might be a bit wary of buffing the mortar. It's real nice and accurate and very easy to use and if it could kill people or multiple peoples in one shell reliably that might be a bit much. There's not a lot you can do to avoid it sort of just never sitting still.

Right now it breaks up formations and stops camping which I think is a good role for it. I wonder if giving is gas or incendiary shells would help it do that. Or would that be too much?

I wouldn't mind a buff but I can see why DICE might be a bit wary of buffing the mortar. It's real nice and accurate and very easy to use and if it could kill people or multiple peoples in one shell reliably that might be a bit much. There's not a lot you can do to avoid it sort of just never sitting still.

Right now it breaks up formations and stops camping which I think is a good role for it. I wonder if giving is gas or incendiary shells would help it do that. Or would that be too much?

Right now I'd settle for a mortar that could one-shot an enemy with a direct hit, because so far I haven't seen it yet. And yes, I'd take smoke/gas/incendiary shells in a minute, since as it stands now incendiary is going to be tool of choice against flak users...

The Mortar isn't weak, it's just not very good against infantry. However it is amazing against tanks, especially for forcing them out of cover since direct hits on the roof are pretty nasty and can only be countered by moving continuously until you get out firing range.

Mortar + K-bullet + rocket/at grens are a holy trinity against tanks, people are just adverse to teamwork.

I wouldn't say adverse, just dim-witted or more often at the wrong place at the wrong time.

CQ has the problem of having forces distributed throughout the entire playable area (not evenly, mind you) whereas game modes like Operations, Rush, and Frontlines compact the playable area into sections that unlock after X objective(s) has/ have been taken. This compacting tends to see more teamwork occur because most of the necessary players are in the vicinity and not off fucking about somewhere else which is just an inherent problem with CQ to begin with.

In all 3 linear game-types the flow is directed; the only objective(s) is/ are in a certain direction and enemies can only come from a certain direction, which means force multipliers (tanks) can only come from a certain direction and thus will be targeted with AT ordinance more often.

CQ just doesn't lend to many teamwork opportunities unless you zerg (and the zerg is also at the right place at the right time). Which is cancer because zergs cannot be reasonably defeated.

Prepare your laughbox

the Sebstalder is quiet good since it can 3hit kill at any distanc ,but In my opinion i actually thikn the sweeper is better, its got a really really fast firerate that can beat alll those Noobmaticos, Helregall adn shitguns in close quarters , and its also really accurate out to like l;ong range,. overall great allround gun, jsut my 2$ tho

I wouldn't say adverse, just dim-witted or more often at the wrong place at the wrong time.

CQ has the problem of having forces distributed throughout the entire playable area (not evenly, mind you) whereas game modes like Operations, Rush, and Frontlines compact the playable area into sections that unlock after X objective(s) has/ have been taken. This compacting tends to see more teamwork occur because most of the necessary players are in the vicinity and not off fucking about somewhere else which is just an inherent problem with CQ to begin with.

In all 3 linear game-types the flow is directed; the only objective(s) is/ are in a certain direction and enemies can only come from a certain direction, which means force multipliers (tanks) can only come from a certain direction and thus will be targeted with AT ordinance more often.

CQ just doesn't lend to many teamwork opportunities unless you zerg (and the zerg is also at the right place at the right time). Which is cancer because zergs cannot be reasonably defeated.

CQ has always had a lot of teamwork opportunities. A major one: plugging in holes that your team has left open. One guy getting through means the whole squad is going to spawn bomb in your gimme flag, and crushing your whole front line. And armor always require more than one infantry to take down.

I wouldn't say adverse, just dim-witted or more often at the wrong place at the wrong time.

CQ has the problem of having forces distributed throughout the entire playable area (not evenly, mind you) whereas game modes like Operations, Rush, and Frontlines compact the playable area into sections that unlock after X objective(s) has/ have been taken. This compacting tends to see more teamwork occur because most of the necessary players are in the vicinity and not off fucking about somewhere else which is just an inherent problem with CQ to begin with.

In all 3 linear game-types the flow is directed; the only objective(s) is/ are in a certain direction and enemies can only come from a certain direction, which means force multipliers (tanks) can only come from a certain direction and thus will be targeted with AT ordinance more often.

CQ just doesn't lend to many teamwork opportunities unless you zerg (and the zerg is also at the right place at the right time). Which is cancer because zergs cannot be reasonably defeated.

CQ has always had a lot of teamwork opportunities. A major one: plugging in holes that your team has left open. One guy getting through means the whole squad is going to spawn bomb in your gimme flag, and crushing your whole front line. And armor always require more than one infantry to take down.

That used to be the case, but with the new ticket system and the general resistance against anything that opens up another frontline backcapping or even capping another flag beside the current frontline is a tedious task. If you are alone it takes too long to capture and getting to an undefended flag generally means you have to cross open fields. Also if you do this as a squad your team is missing 4 guys at the frontline which might mean being pushed back, making your capture a couple of minutes later rather worthless.

"CQ doesn't lend to many teamwork opportunities" and "CQ has always had a lot of teamwork opportunities" aren't the same thing. My statement acknowledges that teamwork opportunities are possible and plentiful in CQ, but the chaotic nature of CQ tends to complicate that. The less chaotic nature of Rush, Operations (moreso controlled chaos), and Frontlines however see MORE opportunity THAN CQ. Not saying CQ is devoid of opportunities just that they are less likely to be taken.

I don't know where you read that I suggested or implied that one infantry is enough or should be enough to take down armor, but you are mistaken in either case. I even referred to tanks as force multipliers which, in and of itself, implies 'more than one infantry to take down'.

The context of my reply to tankmayvin was in reference to his comment about the "holy trinity against tanks" being the Mortar, Rocket Gun, and K Bullets and how "people are adverse to teamwork." Looking at the context would have prevented this conversation from even happening. But since you took my response out of context, we're left with this.

Prepare your laughbox

the Sebstalder is quiet good since it can 3hit kill at any distanc ,but In my opinion i actually thikn the sweeper is better, its got a really really fast firerate that can beat alll those Noobmaticos, Helregall adn shitguns in close quarters , and its also really accurate out to like l;ong range,. overall great allround gun, jsut my 2$ tho

"CQ doesn't lend to many teamwork opportunities" and "CQ has always had a lot of teamwork opportunities" aren't the same thing. My statement acknowledges that teamwork opportunities are possible and plentiful in CQ, but the chaotic nature of CQ tends to complicate that. The less chaotic nature of Rush, Operations (moreso controlled chaos), and Frontlines however see MORE opportunity THAN CQ. Not saying CQ is devoid of opportunities just that they are less likely to be taken.

I don't know where you read that I suggested or implied that one infantry is enough or should be enough to take down armor, but you are mistaken in either case. I even referred to tanks as force multipliers which, in and of itself, implies 'more than one infantry to take down'.

The context of my reply to tankmayvin was in reference to his comment about the "holy trinity against tanks" being the Mortar, Rocket Gun, and K Bullets and how "people are adverse to teamwork." Looking at the context would have prevented this conversation from even happening. But since you took my response out of context, we're left with this.

It also depends on how you define chaotic, because in rush and frontlines, on the telegraphs and in the capture zone, it is actually pretty chaotic as well. Also I don't see how rush and frontlines lend to more teamwork opportunities than CQ. I would say they are pretty much equal.